https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104220 The court dismissed the petition under sections 433(a), 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, as the debt was genuinely disputed by the respondent. The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to adhere to the agreement terms, causing the expiration of the letter of credit. The court emphasized that a winding-up petition is not appropriate when the debt is disputed, directing each party to bear their own costs. en-us Fri, 13 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104220 The court dismissed the petition under sections 433(a), 434, and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956, as the debt was genuinely disputed by the respondent. The respondent argued that the petitioner failed to adhere to the agreement terms, causing the expiration of the letter of credit. The court emphasized that a winding-up petition is not appropriate when the debt is disputed, directing each party to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 13 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104220